Open Carry section?

[Paladin]

We currently have a section titled CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY. With the impending decisions in NYSRPA and then Young (most likely GVR after NYSRPA), we should be prepared for winning a Right to Carry openly. It may come before Shall Issue Concealed Carry takes effect or at least before everyone can get a permit due to pent up demand. The purpose of the new section is to have a place where CGNers can coordinate LOC meetups and demonstrations like pro RKBA activists did in OH in 2003 forcing the state legislature to pass SI in 2004. Or just to discuss and exercise our new found freedom.

We should be prepared to launch this immediately after the NYSRPA decision when a tsunami of new visitors will come here. While that will probably come late June, it could come as soon as late February.

[3B830]

Would be nice but will depend on the state of the law in Ca. based on the decision. I don’t think it will be as broad as you think. Based on the question the court rewrote, denial of a CC license, I don’t see Ca’s general prohibition on loaded carry, absent a LTC, being affected by this SCOTUS decision or even Young, as he also sought a license.

[stoogescv]

We currently have a section titled CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY. With the impending decisions in NYSRPA and then Young (most likely GVR after NYSRPA), we should be prepared for winning a Right to Carry openly. It may come before Shall Issue Concealed Carry takes effect or at least before everyone can get a permit due to pent up demand. The purpose of the new section is to have a place where CGNers can coordinate LOC meetups and demonstrations like pro RKBA activists did in OH in 2003 forcing the state legislature to pass SI in 2004. Or just to discuss and exercise our new found freedom.

We should be prepared to launch this immediately after the NYSRPA decision when a tsunami of new visitors will come here. While that will probably come late June, it could come as soon as late February.

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a section to discuss open carry in California. If the US Supreme Court issues a decision in NYSRPA v Bruen that recognizes a Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun for purposes of self-defense (as is widely expected), that will open a whole set of new questions, including: (i) does the Second Amendment also guaranty a right to open carry, (ii) if so, can the state impose “reasonable” licensing requirements for open carry, (iii) if the state can require licensing for open-carry, can it require a citizen to get two separate licenses if that citizen wants to concealed carry sometimes (e.g., when going downtown for dinner or to the theater) and open carry other times (e.g., when hiking, camping, working outdoors) or does the state have to allow the citizen who has been issued a license to carry concealed also carry openly without getting a second license, or (v) if the state decides to designate “sensitive places” where licensed carriers cannot carry, is the state required to do so under some standard of “reasonableness,” and if so, would some places be reasonably designated as sensitive for concealed carry but not for open carry and vice versa (e.g., would it be okay to designate beaches as permissible for concealed carry but not for open carry).

I understand the argument many have made that a state should be able to outlaw concealed carry or open carry but not both, but I have real doubts that such an approach will pass constitutional scrutiny. If someone is issued a concealed carry permit but wants to open carry when hiking, I think they have a legitimate argument that the Second Amendment should recognize an open carry right (perhaps subject to reasonable restrictions such as allowing concealed carry in some locations where open carry is not permitted because people might get hysterical about it) separate and distinct from the concealed carry right. In other words, yes, the Second Amendment guaranties a right to concealed carry for self-defense, but it also guaranties a right to open carry for self-defense, but the reasonable restrictions that the government may impose could be different for each.

I think these questions should be in a separate section from the open carry discussion because mixing the two will tend to be chaotic and confusing. I think it is better to separate the discussion so that people who want to discuss – or read about – concealed carry will not need to wade through the posts of people like me who want to talk about open carry as a separately protected right that cannot be prohibited just because the state allows concealed carry. Also, if the Supreme Court says “no, open carry is not protected so long as concealed carry is allowed,” then the separate section can just die a quiet death and the concealed carry threads won’t be littered with our open carry posts.

[hermosabeach]

Open carry is dumb- in any urban environment

Jeff Cooper speaks on Condition White

Gang Bangers call it "slipping". Eg caught that fool Slipping


It's where I come up to you and snatch your gun and you don't have a level 3 retention holster.

Or I come up behind you and smack you in the ear with a brick



You are a "free" gun, watch and wallet store
You are a raw chicken being thrown into a gator pond.


In most of California - based on population - you create a negative stereo type of gun owners.

You make more stores post - no firearms.


Be discreet
Be the grey man

[hermosabeach]

“Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.” Miyamoto Musashi 1645 AD

[stoogescv]

Open carry is dumb- in any urban environment ....

You make Paladin's or my point far better than either of us made it: if we have a separate section for open carry discussion, people who think discussing it is "dumb" will not have to wade through posts about it when they are looking at threads they think are interesting and worthwhile.

[Paladin]

It may come before Shall Issue Concealed Carry takes effect or at least before everyone can get a permit due to pent up demand. The purpose of the new section is to have a place where CGNers can coordinate LOC meetups and demonstrations like pro RKBA activists did in OH in 2003 forcing the state legislature to pass SI in 2004.

Funny how many people missed or ignored this, the main reason I want a RBA LOC — to force Sacto to pass Shall Issue like OH activists did.

I’d also like to LOC while hiking, playing sports, being able to remove my cover garment if it gets hot, to not lose my CCW if the wind should blow my jacket open or I reach too high or bend over and expose my gun.

FWIW Chairman Jeff wasn’t god….

https://youtu.be/RpBcUzcECSU

[clb]

Sounds like a well prepared, thought out and understood protocol would be beneficial....

[ar15robert]

Open carry is dumb- in any urban environment

Jeff Cooper speaks on Condition White

Gang Bangers call it "slipping". Eg caught that fool Slipping


It's where I come up to you and snatch your gun and you don't have a level 3 retention holster.

Or I come up behind you and smack you in the ear with a brick



You are a "free" gun, watch and wallet store
You are a raw chicken being thrown into a gator pond.


In most of California - based on population - you create a negative stereo type of gun owners.

You make more stores post - no firearms.


Be discreet
Be the grey man

If its only choice i understand but like here in az permitless ccw is allowed and i really dont see the point of open carry and i do see it often too.Mostly its people who have the look at me im carrying attitude.Personally i prefer concealed and do carry concealed.

Open carry i will use for the right situation like out in the forest or desert.

[Trapper]

I agree, open carry is dumb in an urban environment. Even with extensive weapon retention training and level 2 or 3 holster open carry is a bad idea.
If this is our best leverage to push for shall issue ccw, we need better leverage.